Picture Dennis Hastert Naked...

Nick Gillespie | September 29, 2005

...and then pray to God, Zod, or Cthulhu that Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment or something so we never have to think of Dennis Hastert--a man who became speaker of the house in large part because his GOP colleagues figured he was the least likely member to have sex and hence a scandal--naked again.

The Wine Commonsewer sends along this suggestive and outraged missive from the American Conservative Union:

GOP leaders are naked

...The Republican congressional leaders want Indiana's Rep. Mike Pence to go away, or at least shut up.

They say that he's grandstanding by talking about cutting spending and that the effort of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which he chairs, to force them to look for offsets as they prepare to spend as much as $200 billion on hurricane relief, on top of the spending that already has conservatives rolling their eyes, is "counterproductive."

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), among others, took Pence to the woodshed last week and, we are told, informed him in the bluntest terms that the problem is not runaway spending or the Democrats but him and the RSC. It seems to be the leaders' belief that, by criticizing spending, Pence and his hundred-odd followers are not the "team players" they should be because it is at least possible that whipping up popular anger on the issue could convince people that the GOP isn't doing all it can to deliver on decades of promises to America’s voters.

...Mike Pence has been taken to the woodshed for pointing out the obvious -- that today's GOP emperors are as naked as jaybirds -- and for that he should be applauded.

Whole thing here.

Comments

Jeff P.|9.29.05 @ 3:13PM|#

I prefer to think of Hastert on his knees before Rawhead Rex, slurping up the beast's caustic urine.
WWZD: What Would Zod Do?

|9.29.05 @ 3:22PM|#

If only someone could scare up some serious backlash against our borrow and spend Republican leaders. Unfortunately, it would probably only push people to vote Democrat next time around, cuz there's no other alternative, right?

Now where's M1EK to yell at me that I can't be seriously saying the Democrats and Republicans are equally as bad? Because maybe not, but I would like to know what, exactly, the Democrats would be doing differently.

Akira MacKenzie|9.29.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Zog? Zog yes? Zog No? Where's my bucket?

Ooooooh, you said "Zod!" After they paroled him for the Phantom Zone, didn't he get some gig as chancellor of some galatic republic, or something? :)

(Catch the geek wave!)

|9.29.05 @ 3:36PM|#

...but I would like to know what, exactly, the Democrats would be doing differently.

Politicians like skinning the taxpayers alive.

As near as I can tell the difference between reps and dems is that one starts from the neck and works to the ankles while the other starts at the ankles and works to the neck. I can't for the life of me remember which is which but the feeling's about the same.

Jeff P.|9.29.05 @ 3:41PM|#

Geek volley: "They walk near Sigma-957. They must walk there alone."

Reasons Zod would make a superior president:
1: Screaming "Is there no one on this planet who can even challenge me?" during debates.
2: We would never "out" an official's undercover wife, he simply have her torn in half.
3: Doesn't use doors. Would appear at every press conference by bursting through the wall.

|9.29.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Until you can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, I am forced to pray to it.

The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 3:43PM|#

Now that Hastert is naked, we can all see his pork.

M1EK|9.29.05 @ 3:49PM|#

For one thing, THIS batch of Democrats wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq (and don't bother with the BS about how they authorized force when fed the false information the Administration gave them). Even if they had spent every bit as much domestically as the drunken sailors in the GOP, we'd be quite a bit ahead of the game by now.

|9.29.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Lowdog wanted to know: "I would like to know what, exactly, the Democrats would be doing differently."

Well, the last time a Dem was Prez, here's what happened: The longest peacetime economic expansion in American history.

Nearly 18 million new jobs, wages rising at more than twice the rate of inflation, the highest homeownership up to that time, and the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years. Not to mention the lowest peacetime unemployment rate since 1957.

For the first time in three decades, the budget was balanced. From a deficit of $290 billion in 1992, America had a surplus.

But under Republican fiscal stewardship, the federal government has installed systematic dysfunction in our country's economy. If not for the Iraq war and tax code changes that further widened the gap between rich and poor to historic levels, our federal Treasury could have absorbed hurricane-related reconstruction spending without undue strain or hardship.

This conclusion is unavoidable to those who observe the facts without party bias.

|9.29.05 @ 4:02PM|#

What if I told you Dennis Hastert is a member of my naturist club?

The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 4:03PM|#

What would Ray Stevens say about a naked Hastert? I think it would go something like this:

Oh they call Hastert the Streak
His sense of honor is weak
He wants to muzzle Mr. Pence
And other voices of sense
Suppressing public critique

Akira MacKenzie|9.29.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Only one human commander has survived battle with a Minbari fleet. HE is behind me. YOU are in front of me.

If you value your lives, be somewhere else!

Akira MacKenzie|9.29.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Sorry, I guess the thought of a skyclad Hastart has driven me to uncontrollably quote Babylon 5.

This must be what going mad feels like.

|9.29.05 @ 4:14PM|#

Shawn - what party bias am I showing? Please. Also, are you seriously trying to say that Clinton was the sole cause of all those positive economic things? Because if you are, I think it's you that's showing some party bias.

Once again, to all of those who can't quite grasp it: I do not like either the Republicans or Democrats. Whichever one may be "worse", neither has many, if any, of my interests in mind, so neither is very "good" to me.

Now, we may not have gone to war if Kerry had been prez, and that would have been a "good" thing, but I'm sure he would have made up for a lot of the spending he wouldn't spend on Iraq by spending a lot on Medicare or other entitlement programs. Or maybe not. Maybe we would've got lucky and had some quagmire with the legislative branch still controlled by the Repubs. That would've been about the best anyone could hope for.

But who knows? All I know is that our government sucks (actually, the folks in gov't), and until people start realising that neither the Dems or Reps give a shite about you and that maybe, just maybe, trying some alternatives would be a good idea, we're going to continue to get the same lying, stealing, selfish thugs that we've been getting for quite some time now.

The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 4:15PM|#

What if I told you Dennis Hastert is a member of my naturist club?

You folks must not eat very much at that club.

|9.29.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Shawn

If the 22nd amendment is repealed and Bill Clinton runs again I might be persuaded to vote for him, even though I think that Alan Greenspan deserves more of the credit.

Although I'm not entirely sure that a lax monetary policy that created an unsustainable stock market bubble (together with an unsustainable growth bubble generally) deserves that much praise.

|9.29.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Funny you should mention Kerry, Lowdog. He was a supporter of the Balanced Budget Amendment, back when such a thing was heresy for a Democrat.

Back to the topic at hand, imho, the only justification for running a deficit is some sort of crisis - either a seriously tanking economy, a war, or a disaster of some sort.

It stinks that it's just now, after marching like good little sheep on the tax cut, the prescription drug benefit, the elective war, the gigantic ball of highway pork, etc etc etc, it is Hurricaine Katrina rebuilding - the only good reason for deficit spending to come along in years - that any of them are showing discomfort. Drug companies? Here's some money. Iraq War? Bring it on! Tax cuts? With a side of catsup, please. But the near-annihilation of major city and much of its metropolitan area, accompanied by the elimination of the homes, livelihoods, and communities of hundreds of thousands of our own citizens? Whoa, now, what am I, made of money? Get a job ya bum.

Did I mention I don't like Republicans very much?

|9.29.05 @ 4:36PM|#

Well, Lowdog, since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine: I agree that both the Dempublicans and the Republicrats suck, which is why I manifest my political independence at the voting booth: I evaluate each candidate in each race and vote for the candidate whom I hate the least.

I vote in Democrat or Republican primaries and cast my vote for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians or whomever else seems to be the lesser of the evils.

But the 2000 election really was different. Since that Presidential election was stolen, and one party took control of the Federal government, there has been no check on their excess. What used to be the more conservative of the major parties has morphed into fascism.

My point is that we don't have to speculate about what the Dems might do; we saw what they did. We don't have to speculate about what our country would look like if one party controlled the major news media, all of the largest corporations, most of the churches and a majority of other social and political institutions. If you read Reason regularly, you know that when it comes to stewardship of the national economy, the current administration's record is unprecedented. The fundamentals of government fiscal policy have never been this badly out of balance since the US recovered from the Great Depression, and this would be just as true based on the facts if Democrats were in control of the federal government.

Five years ago, I used to think that both of the major parties sucked about equally; but the Republicans have been working hard to convince me since then that they really do suck more. The proof is in the factual evidence available to every reader of Reason.

|9.29.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Akira, you should just Ask Zog yourself -

|9.29.05 @ 5:16PM|#

Picture Dennis Hastert Naked...

With shudder-inducing titles like that, maybe the FCC should regulate blog content...

(just kidding)

R C Dean|9.29.05 @ 5:24PM|#

Shawn, its funny how your anti-Republican diatribe above deflates when you add in some crucial facts:

Well, the last time a Dem was Prez and the Repubs got control of the House and Senate, here's what happened: The longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. etc. etc.

As for joe's little anti-Repub missive, I can only point out that, for all his complaints about Republican spending (and no one abhors the spending spree more than me), he neglects to point out that the Dem response has been, with the possible sole exception of the Iraq war, that the Repubs aren't spending enough.

No libertarian should support fiscal responsibility of the Dem flavor - out of control spending paired with sky-high taxes.

The Repubs may spend like sober Democrats, but at least they don't tax like 'em.

This posting should not be taken as endorsement of the Republican party or its economic policies. I'm merely pointing out that it is risible for anyone to pretend that the Dems offer libertarians a viable alternative.

The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 5:43PM|#

The Repubs may spend like sober Democrats, but at least they don't tax like 'em.

Republicans tax future generations with their borrowing and spending, which is even more unfair than what Democrats do. Future generations can't even be blamed for electing today's Republicans.

M1EK|9.29.05 @ 5:44PM|#

"No libertarian should support fiscal responsibility of the Dem flavor - out of control spending paired with sky-high taxes.

The Repubs may spend like sober Democrats, but at least they don't tax like 'em."

That's just really really really stupid. As other posters have pointed out, there are both moral AND practical reasons to support "tax and spend" over "borrow and spend".

MP|9.29.05 @ 6:00PM|#

That's just really really really stupid. As other posters have pointed out, there are both moral AND practical reasons to support "tax and spend" over "borrow and spend".

Dammit...something must be wrong...I'm finding common ground with M1EK on two separate threads at the same time...where's a Global Warming thread when you need one.

|9.29.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Here we are back to the lesser of two evils bullshit.

Taxing and spending is better than borrowing and spending. Great. Having my head cut off in the guillotine is better than having it cut off by a knife. I don't like either.

Why can't we just not tax and not spend, hm??

Although I do agree that if we absolutely have to have one or the other, let's tax and spend. Which makes me shudder. :/

The Anti-Puritan|9.29.05 @ 6:25PM|#

Here we are back to the lesser of two evils bullshit.

In politics, you usually have only two choices: you can support the lesser of two evils, or you can insist on the ideal option. In the latter case, the best becomes the enemy of the good. For example, many on the left regretted voting for Nader instead of Gore in 2000 when they realized that they had helped Bush-the greater of two evils, from their point of view-win.

|9.29.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Yes, Anti-Puritan, I know all about game theory and all that stuff. We've had this discussion on another thread, and frankly I don't really feel like going over it all again.

So I guess I can feel guilty for getting Bush elected twice, since I voted libertarian for prez both times. Sorry, but not really.

|9.29.05 @ 7:43PM|#

RC, "As for joe's little anti-Repub missive, I can only point out that, for all his complaints about Republican spending (and no one abhors the spending spree more than me), he neglects to point out that the Dem response has been, with the possible sole exception of the Iraq war, that the Repubs aren't spending enough." That is fundamentally untrue. The complaint about the Drug Benefit has been twofold - it costs too much, and it is a massive giveaway to the drug companies. A much better designed, less corrupt program could actually provide more help for the geezers who need it which costing less.

On taxes, the Democrats wanted a smaller tax cut.

I have not one - not one - complaint from any quarter that the highway bill didn't spend enough.

Of the three spending item I mentioned - the war, the drug bill, and the highway bill - the Republicans outspent what the Democrats wanted on every single one.

|9.29.05 @ 7:48PM|#

"Shawn, its funny how your anti-Republican diatribe above deflates when you add in some crucial facts:

Well, the last time a Dem was Prez and the Repubs got control of the House and Senate, here's what happened: The longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. etc. etc."

If I can jump in here, that's not true, either. The budget deal that cut the deficit and laid the groundwork for the 90s boom was cut between Old George Bush and the Democratic Congress. Then Clinton came in and respected the spending limits, while putting forward a fiscal and economic program that resulted in the surplusses. When the Republican Congress came in, they too respected the budget agreement, but they were the last of the three to agree to it.

There were fights about spending priorities and tax collections, but the basic framework that the Republican Congress was working within had been laid down years before they came into power, by a Democratic Congress and a Republican president denounced as a traitor by his party for his fiscal responsibility.

|9.29.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Lowdog,

Be proud of your libertarian presidential votes. After all, Bush is the worst prez since everybody's least favorite Johnson (Lyndon or Andrew--pick one), but according to the right-wing clairvoyants, Gore and Kerry would have somehow been even worse than the WORST.

Since W has recklessly screwed up on a number of fronts, I'm glad that he and the congressional repubs have limited ability to shift blame. As W's second term continues -- with appalling spending/a deliberate lack of spending vetos, tragic crony patronage, and assorted failures to secure Iraq -- the right can't blame Kerry for messing everything up ("we were just turning the corner but then Kerry was elected..."). It sounds more and more desperate trying to blame Clinton for our problems.

I left the repub party the week the Iraq war started, and I've never looked back. From my point of view, big spending, big gov't social conservatives are the exact opposite of fiscally conservative, small gov't social progressives that comprise the libertarian base. The repubs need real action and fewer phony talking points if they want me back. Meanwhile, I root for divided gov't.

|9.29.05 @ 8:06PM|#

"Taxing and spending is better than borrowing and spending."

This fiscal conservative dreamer thinks that borrowing and spending is better than taxing and spending, and I'm not the only one.

...maybe some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.

|9.29.05 @ 8:17PM|#

Joe,

Did I mention I don't like Republicans very much?

Don't mention it. You really don't have to.

drf|9.29.05 @ 8:22PM|#

two thoughts
1) can we then wrap up denny in clingwrap?

and

2) what would Rick Santorum's dog possibly have to say about this. hmmmmmmm. what would he have to say.....

|9.29.05 @ 9:37PM|#

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), among others, took Pence to the woodshed last week and, we are told, informed him in the bluntest terms that the problem is not runaway spending or the Democrats but him and the RSC."

I'm not saying that Dennis Hastert mercilessly raped Mike Pence in the woodshed, I'm just saying that I don't have any evidence either way.

|9.29.05 @ 11:15PM|#

Taxing and spending is better than borrowing and spending.

Ah, but if the Rapture comes soon -- as the chosen ones know it will -- what is borrowed will not have to be payed back. If Jesus comes in 2009, the budget projections for 2010 won't mean a damn thing.

In view of this, the modern Republican fascination with borrowing and spending seems less a political strategy than a sign of faith. So quit persecuting them for their beliefs.

;-)

|9.29.05 @ 11:22PM|#

drf--

If I saw Denny naked, I'd probably shit in my crate. I've come close enough a few times, thank you, like during the Republican Congressional Greco-Roman wrestling tournament hosted by my ... ahem ... owner.

|9.29.05 @ 11:25PM|#

Lowdog:

"So I guess I can feel guilty for getting Bush elected twice, since I voted libertarian for prez both times. Sorry, but not really."

Me too, since 1988. I don't feel a bit guilty for it and right now I have a lot of fun rubbing both the Repubs and Dems noses in the mess we're in right now. My motto is, "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian." Better than a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich any time.

|9.29.05 @ 11:43PM|#

Shawn

"If not for the Iraq war and tax code changes ... our federal Treasury could have absorbed hurricane-related reconstruction spending without undue strain..."

Right, because the Democrats would have kept every penny saved by repealing Bush's tax-cuts for a rainy day. Or, to paraphrase, you're funny.

The Anti-Puritan|9.30.05 @ 1:24AM|#

Tom Crick:
This fiscal conservative dreamer thinks that borrowing and spending is better than taxing and spending, and I'm not the only one.

'Splain, Lucy!

|9.30.05 @ 2:17AM|#

Ahh, fair Reason magazine (and readers), sometimes you are the only things in this world that keep me from shooting myself.... : )

Andrew Ian Dodge|9.30.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Let it all hang out for the party?

drf|9.30.05 @ 12:19PM|#

oh fido...

|9.30.05 @ 5:16PM|#

'Splain, Lucy!

Surely, you've heard of the Laffer Curve.

...and stop callin' me Lucy! ; )